Ah, the first opportunity to post. Here's my ideas:
The film's ability to present both sides of a debate about the ethics (though the film never uses this word) of a documentary artist, his subject, and the viewer remains with me strongly. That is, the film, even in presenting on a real debate on a real (memorable) subject nonetheless leaves the viewer in the middle (unlike, say, a Michael Moore film, which adamantly takes a side on its subject). The viewer, therefore, still has some contemplation at hand.
Does Shelby Lee Adams's photography exploit those he claims he is merely showing to the world, the world into which he continually reminds the viewer he was born? Remember, the one "holler" dweller who claims she's been "schooled" (ie, went to college) is the only one of them to also claim that the photos are exploitative. In contrast, another (near the end of the film) sees nothing wrong with the types of photos Adams takes, and she presents some pretty clear justifications for such a view. Which is correct? Is either correct? Do their comments expose more about the artistic and viewing processes than necessarily about the validity of their claims?
As you can read from my post here, we are not so much interested whether or not you like the week's film as much as we are in the ways it engages you, the ways it is put together, and the effects that such construction have on the viewing process. Moreover, with a film such as The True Meaning..., we can make argumentative claims about the ways the film is also a document about the tension between artist, subject, and viewer (really, though, this is fodder for discussion with every film).
I haven't stopped thinking about this film since I saw it. I could see both the beauty and 'ugly' of the situation, so I saw both sides. I relate to the woman who felt the photos were 'exploitative' because this is what we in the African American Community go through all the time when someone wants to tell 'our story' to the world through the arts. We have those that see the beauty and those who would rather our 'dirty' laundry be kept quiet. I can't say I agree with it, I just relate. As an artist, I saw the beauty in the art, but as a human being I could not help but feel the 'monstrosities' that were depicted. I will have to work very hard at having the 'critical eye' that you described as the focus of this course, as I am a writer by nature, it is the story that is most compelling to me. I'm not a director, so it is a challenge for me to focus on the angles and what they are saying. When I recently watched the movie 'Precious' it conjured up some of the same feelings of love of the art, and disdain over the ugly. When I read critical analysis of the film and saw that indeed the angles that were used to shoot the lead character depicted her a certain way..I was very surprised to find that to be indeed the case. Critical analysis of film is very interesting to me, as my work (screenplays, poems, articles etc.)seeks to infuse a deeper meaning than just the pretty superficial pictures, and I am a firm believer in symbolism..it's like picking apart the mind of the screenwriter (and yes the director) who fall under the category of 'creator' in our "Truth lies in the eyes of..." analogy today. Interesting stuff, and I dare say a challenge for me. In the long run it will help me expand my scope as a filmmaker/writer/producer into perhaps overcoming my fear of directing and editing.
ReplyDeleteThis is Nesha Thompson and I want to talk about "Capturing the Friedmans." This documentary in my opinion was trying to make the audience have sympathy for Arthur Friedman and Jesse Friedman. Although the truth was never revealed, the whole time, I was waiting for a happy ending where evidence was shown to prove that Arthur and Jesse were innocent. The film did this by showing Arthurs' relationship with his sons. It was showing that he was really a good man and would not have done this to young boys. The evidence shown and the interviews done, also showed that people were probably lying or overexaggerating about the whole thing. Only a couple of times, the film made me feel like Arthur was the bad guy. It made me feel like he was the bad guy when they
ReplyDeletetalked about how he really was a pedafile and how he raped his son. Overall, the documentary had many grey areas. There was never any truth revealed. It mostly took the side of the Friedmans and made me feel sympathy for Arthur, his wife, and his sons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe 'relative' facts laid out in the documentary "Capturing the Friedmans", substantiate our class discussion on where the 'truth' 'lies'. I thought it was a cleverly executed work with elliptical style. Where there seemed to be a bias on the side of innocence. I think as a society..that is what we want to see and hear. As Nesha says above, we want the happy ending with innocence proclaimed, but that's not always what we get. So in that the directors choices in both arrangement and style cater to our desires as humans, yet does not leave out the possibility of the unthinkable being a reality. The choice of documentaries for our class to critique are so incredibly captivating in terms of story..to remember to focus on the structure and creative intent or meaning is definitely a mind opener, I appreciate it so much.
ReplyDelete"Super Size Me"
ReplyDeleteAfter the opening credits, there is an expository conversation between Morgan Spurlock and the audience that sets up the film's structure-it's a typical Hollywood introduction. The inclusion of certain shots (the close up of vomit after Spurlock finishes his first meal, the all-too-close shots of jiggling thighs and bellies, and the gastric bypass operation footage) shock the audience. While this is entertaining, it also visually suggests that consuming McDonald's three times a day has negative health consequences. I think this calls into question whether or not this is an ethical choice for the filmmaker. What effect would excluding such shots have on the film/Spurlock's argument?
Bethany Kaskey